Sen. Pat Roberts (R-Kan.), a Bolton supporter, had this to say if Bush went ahead with a recess appointment: it "would weaken not only Mr. Bolton but also the United States." Lovely.

Meanwhile, Kofi Annan said, "I think it is all right for one ambassador to come and push, but an ambassador always has to remember that there are 190 others who will have to be convinced—or a vast majority of them—for action to take place." I believe Annan is offering a subtle warning that confirms what I wrote yesterday: "Just how seriously will Bolton be taken, with UN member countries fully aware that this guy is damaged goods and a 100% beneficiary of partisan favor? They're not stupid and they'll look for any chance they can to embarrass Bolton and make him a complete liability for the U.S. You dumb-ass Rush wingnuts who think he's going to "shake up the joint" and "kick some UN arse" have another thing coming."

And these same wingnuts just keep proclaiming that Bush was forced into this recess appointment because the Dems stopped an up/down vote. All those who have a clue know that the reason a vote did not come was because the White House refused to produce some documents on Bolton that were requested for review. Plain and simple. GW/Rove decided it was best to 1) not produce the most-likely very damaging documents and instead 2) recess appoint and tag the excuse for such on the "blocking" Dems. The wingnuts are fools (as usual) to believe otherwise.

Oh, and Bolton is on record opposing the "'right of humanitarian intervention' to justify military operations to prevent ethnic cleansing or potential genocide." Then shouldn't big-mouth Bolton have been emphatically criticizing this administration for what they eventually claimed was the purpose of the Iraq invasion (once the WMD thing didn't pan out)?